<i>There you go Evan. The class 1/2 have more CRS… Then it is absolutely necessary to have a valid adjustment of the CRS -> MMTS stations.</i>
What it means is that Class 1\2 stations are affected less by MMTS conversion. Not more.
<i>Then it is absolutely necessary to have a valid adjustment of the CRS -> MMTS stations.</i>
Oh, yes. Instead of the MMTS-> CRS adjustments we have been seeing. The wrong set is adjusted -- in the wrong direction. Where have we seen that before? (Yes, homogenization, I am pointing at you.)
I think y'all are looking for your answers in the wrong places. Try a 180-degree turn.
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
I don’t understand all this “secrecy” and withholding data “until publication”.
You would if you had it usurped. That was data I had a personal hand in. Therefore you must perish until we publish. That’s that.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Agree with much of what you say.
Isn’t that the standard in all areas of science, not just climate science?
Yes. And releasing data upon publication is also the standard in all areas of science.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
verystallguy
USHCN adjustments warm the recent past.
GHCN adjustments cool the distant past.
Net effect is a greater warming trend over the entire record.
—————————————-
Addendum: I suspect you tried to change the subject from land surface station siting to land/ocean temperature reconstruction. Adjustments increase the warming trend on all land stations i.e. both USHCN and GHCN. Even as we speak, however, SST adjustments have been pencil-whipped to erase “the hiatus” so that too is subject to torture when needed to sex up the warming trend.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
He reported his findings at the AGU. And? The post wasn’t even a sticky.
In any case, you do it your way, and more power to you. We’ll do it ours.
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Willard
> Por ejemplo:
That comment wasn’t even addressed to me, Don Don.
Try a bit later:
Perhaps looking at the rating process as an algorithm can clarify matters.
First, you read an ABSTRACT. Does it mention AGW? Yes, they all do.
Second, you ask: does it say or imply anything about AGW? If yes, go to the third step; if not, put it into (4a).
Third, does it say something that the issue regarding AGW is uncertain or indeterminate? Put it into (4b).
Fourth, does it say something quantative? If yes, put it into (1) or (7).
Fifth, does it minimize AGW? If yes, put it into (5) or (6).
Sixth, does it endorses explicitely AGW, If yes, put it into (2).
Seventh, does it work assumes AGW? If yes, put it into (3).
Eighth, you loop back another time for each article.
Ninth, you arbitrate ratings conflict.
Tenth, you validate with the authors of the ABSTRACTS themselves.
If you look at the whole classification, instead of finding new words to minimize what has been done, you should see that if an ABSTRACT expresses its endorsement regarding AGW, it is not by saying that “yeah, but AGW is an unspecified part”. That could very well go into (4b), if the rater does not see an endorsement.
There’s a judgement call there that can’t be solved by pushing the limits of justified disingenuousness.
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18920
Chris did not recover very well from that algorithm. He went on ad hom mode, which he should have left to you, You’re simply in your line of protection services, Don Don.
However you slice it, C13 is good enough for what it did. Sure, there are things that they could have improved. I made many suggestions myself. No, I won’t tell you which ones, and yes, Frank missed them all. Speaking of whom, if you read that comment thread at BartV’s, is issue about papers before AR4 has been addressed.
Don’t forget to close by saying that C13 doesn’t matter anyway. It’s always nice to see Denizens invest so much time in something that doesn’t matter.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by PA
I don’t know if GHG emissions are doing more harm or more good. We only hear about the projected harm. We hear little about the benefits,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GB00470/full
This is one of “those” questions. 0.9 to 1.2 megatons of N2O from agricultural land in the US. Obvious more from other lands. This could be more NOx than from power plants. When you toss in forest fires and weather generated nitrogen oxides, power plants create a minority of the NOx emissions and the current limitations are overkill.
So NOx isn’t an issue.
Sulfur dioxide is a plant nutrient. At the current levels it arguably does more good than harm. Natural sources are decay, volcanoes, sea spray, forest fires, etc.
That leaves us with CO2 and water.
Human emitted CO2 is responsible for 42% of current food supplies, and forest products.
Known harm from CO2 at the 400 PPM level??? The answers tend to be Zohnerism. I am unaware of any proven harm from 400 PPM CO2.
Now there are some folks out there that are opposed to CO2 and are perfectly happy to starve people just to be fashionable
These people would rather have the new expensive stylish but unreliable renewable energy, rather than reliable and cheap fossil fuels because they have more money than brains…
and view potentially starving millions of people as a feature not a problem.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Willard
> You’re simply in your line of protection services, Don Don.
You’re simply the best, that is.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by mwgrant
Nick,
One last clarification, if you will:
“…thus the choice of infilling method makes little difference.”
between the result [of the comparison of the two methods with one another(?) ]
Thanks.
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by beththeserf
Wishing Judith and the denizens a 97% ( at minimum )
Joyful Christmas and New Year. bts.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Don Monfort
You are pathetic, willy. No moral or intellectual integrity. Audit yourself.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
And to you Beth! :)
Enjoy you nice mild 33C in Melbourne tomorrow. :)
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Russell Seitz
As do you.
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Steven Mosher
Like I said Rud.. with all that brain power you wasted your time on ebooks
that no policy maker took notice of.
As smart as you are, as gifted, and as talented, and acomplished as you are, you did us all a dis-service by wasting those talents on ebooks.
You should have joined Nic Lewis and Judith or Mcintyre or Watts.
You should have waged war on the climate science battle field..
I’m serious Rud. I shake my head and think, If I had Rud’s skills, and connections, and money, and gift for commmunication, I would never waste it on doing ebooks for “non deciders”.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
PA,
When you have time could you please lay out how you calculated this, give the inputs and the source for each:
The CO2 levels this century will rise less than 25% of RCP8.5 if we do absolutely nothing but let the good times roll.
I just want to understand the basis for this statement as a starting point.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Don Monfort
You should have joined Nic Lewis and Judith or Mcintyre or Watts.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by mosomoso
Here in El Nino Central on the mid-coast of NSW El Nino has failed to perform. I hear from our precious MSM that he’s doing all sort of mischief elsewhere, but here it’s cool and damp. (Maybe Nino’s gone drag and dressing up as sis Nina. Who’s not trans these days?)
Temps are hanging in the low 20sC…but don’t worry! The globe is not cooling. Even though today will enter into the local record forever as cool it’s only because of CLOUD. Take away the CLOUD and you get hot. Bring on the CLOUD and you get cool. Works every time. Because nobody can distort temperatures like CLOUD.
Merry Christmas to all.
– ATTC
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Peter M Davies
My final comment for the year.
Alex Pope thinks holocene climate is bounded by changes in the ice and evaporation cycle and I find myself agreeing that this would explain some of the negative feedbacks keeping climate within remarkable stable bounds.
Mosomoso has found clouds as also having a significant effect on local weather and again I agree.
My own observations on local and regional temperatures in Australia brings me to conclude that the prevailing winds (in response to the movement of high and low barometric pressure cells, troughs and ridges) has a far more critical influence on daily maxima and minima. If the wind blows from inland the temperatures rise and if the wind blows from the sea temperatures fall, regardless of cloud cover. Heatwaves result from having repeating patterns of hot winds blowing from inland combining with weak sea breezes and these patterns are chaotic in origin and impossible to predict.
Happy Christmas to Judith and all who visit her pages and may 2016 bring better economic, social and weather conditions for people from all areas of the world.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
@Brandon
The discrepancy in Cook’s sample size was never properly explained. I have seen only seen Sou Hotwhopper paraphrasing an email from John Cook. That explanation hinges on Cook having manually downloaded the data from the Web of Science in small chunks of uneven size. While implausible, it does also explain why his data cannot be reproduced in later queries.
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by climatereason
Russell
Not your usual standards of bon mots. What do you suggest should be our punishment for carrying out the Royal Society motto in taking nobody’s word as final? ?
Ps How is that Scottish wine going?
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
